Re: Late payments after charge-off
07-06-2007 08:11 AM
Question... they can legally report something as 90 days past due when it's more than 1,800 days past due? Wouldn't 90 days late imply that a person stopped paying an account just a few months ago? As most in this forum know, recent negative activity is much more damaging to the FICO score than older negative activity.
If the credit bureaus themselves are not reporting it as 90 days late in December of 2006, why is Fair Isaac?
If your answer is the same: "because they can legally do it," you may be right, you may be wrong... it would probably take a legal precedent from a judge to clarify that argument. But that's not my point. My question is... why would they go through the trouble of changing the credit bureaus reporting knowing full well it will artificially lower my score?
For example, if slapping someone was legal, why would someone want to slap another person to begin with?... simply "because it's legal?" Something may be legal, but it if causes harm to another person and can be justified as "legal", well then that's just malicious, plain and simple.